HOME | DD
Andalitebandit-6 — The Morality of Homosexuality
Published: 2008-02-11 04:37:13 +0000 UTC; Views: 124537; Favourites: 568; Downloads: 172
Redirect to original
Description
A father picks up his newspaper the morning after he buried his son, a Marine Corps Corporal. He found the front page dominated by a story about protesters thanking God for killing another soldier.The protester's justification? Their message is supported by scripture: God is punishing America for being tolerant of homosexuals and the death of soldiers is a welcome sign of God’s wrath.
How is a parent supposed to feel when their beloved child, who happened to be different, dies fighting to protect a people who's only response is “You’re going to hell!” and “God hates you!” ?
The claim in question today is "Homosexuality is morally wrong, because God says so." I disagree. A person's sexual orientation has nothing to do with morality.
Let's look at what parts of the Bible support this claim. A few sample translations from various publications include:
King James Version, first published in 1611: "Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind: it is abomination."
New International Version, first published in 1978: "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."
New English Translation, first published in 2005: "You must not have sexual intercourse with a male as one has sexual intercourse with a woman; it is a detestable act."
-Leviticus 18:22
William Tyndale is commonly called the father of the English Bible. He completed the translation of the New Testament in 1526. In doing so, Tyndale introduced new words into the English language, such as: Jehovah, Passover, atonement and scapegoat.
The Roman Catholic Church protested. Tyndale's translation used words like 'overseer' instead of 'bishop,' 'elder' instead of 'priest,' 'congregation' instead of 'church' and 'love' instead of 'charity'.
Let's look at the definitions of these controversial words:
An 'overseer' is a person who keeps watch over and directs the work of others whereas a 'bishop' is a senior member of the Christian clergy who wields spiritual and administrative authority, even considered in some churches to be successors of the twelve Apostles of Christ.
An 'elder' is an older, influential member of a family, tribe, or community whereas a 'priest' is a member of the second grade of clergy ranking below a bishop but above a deacon and having authority to administer the sacraments.
A 'congregation' is an assemblage of people, animals or things collected together whereas a 'church' is a body of people who attend or belong to a place for public worship.
'Love' is a strong positive emotion of regard and affection whereas 'charity' is something given to help the needy.
The wording in traditional Roman Catholic readings tends towards the clergy's divine right to rule others, to mandate attendance to their sermons and towards giving monetary gifts for the support of the church. They twisted scripture to suit their needs.
However, for the sake of argument, let's suppose that all the various Leviticus 18:22 passages really do mean the same thing and that the message it wants to get across is that homosexuality is an undesirable trait. Leviticus 20:13 goes on to say that it is punishable by death, coincidentally the same punishment given to murderers. Some would agree with Robert T. Lee, the founder of the Society For the Practical Establishment and Perpetuation of the Ten Commandments. Robert says this implies that homosexuality is at least equal to the sin of murder and that all homosexuals should be regarded by every society to be just as much criminals as are murderers. If we take it that far, should every written law in the bible be enforced?
Lee says on his website, "Man has not been given the authority and power to define the nature of crime. That authority is rightfully reserved only by God. [...] Therefore it is God who can best define what is evil for man."
Let's take that idea and see where it goes:
"I do not let women teach. I do not let them have authority over men. They must be quiet." -1 Timothy 2: 12 (New International Reader's Version)
Does this mean that every woman in a position of authority should be fired and women in general striped of their right to vote?
"As for your male and female slaves whom you may have--you may acquire male and female slaves from the pagan nations that are around you. 'Then, too, it is out of the sons of the sojourners who live as aliens among you that you may gain acquisition, and out of their families who are with you, whom they will have produced in your land; they also may become your possession." -Leviticus 25:44-45. (New American Standard Bible)
Does this give us permission to treat others as though they are less than human, even so far as to enslave them, simply because they are different?
"Withhold not from a youth chastisement, When thou smitest him with a rod he dieth not. Thou with a rod smitest him, And his soul from Sheol thou deliverest." - Proverbs 23:13-14 (Young's Literal Translation)
Does this mean that children should grow up thinking that violence is an acceptable form of conflict resolution?
One argument in defense of biblical law is that it is mainly passages from the Old Testament that promote slavery, sexism, child-abuse, and other vices now that were considered virtues in their day. When Jesus died on the cross, the believer's sins were covered by his blood which granted forgiveness and began a new covenant that made the laws of the old obsolete. This can be interpreted from Hebrews 8:8-13.
However, in Matthew 5: 17-18, Jesus says:
"Don't assume that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. For I assure you: Until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or one stroke of a letter will pass from the law until all things are accomplished." (Holman Christian Standard Bible)
Jesus basically explained that every single law in the Old Testament is still applicable and his teachings have no impact on their relevance. He even reiterates that yes, disobedient children should be put to death (Matthew 15:4-7). Even if you choose to ignore that passage, Jesus supposedly died two thousand years ago. Why is it that less than two hundred ago, in 1865 when Congress passed the 13th Amendment that abolished slavery, people were still quoting those same Old Testament scriptures to justify keeping their black slaves? One could argue that those people were misguided, that the Bible was written for a different time, when it was culturally acceptable to do those things; that the Old Testament is not used by Christians for laws we must live by, and is instead more of a history book. In that case, my argument that there are no moral grounds for condemning homosexuality still stands since the book in which it is prohibited, Leviticus, is from the Old Testament.
Others continue to justify their condemnation of homosexuals by pointing out that it is carried over to the New Testament:
"Do you not know that the unrighteous and the wrongdoers will not inherit or have any share in the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the impure and immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor those who participate in homosexuality, nor cheats, nor greedy graspers, nor drunkards, nor foulmouthed revilers and slanderers, nor extortioners and robbers will inherit or have any share in the kingdom of God." -1 Cor. 6:9-10, (Amplified Bible)
"Worse followed. Refusing to know God, they soon didn't know how to be human either—women didn't know how to be women, men didn't know how to be men. Sexually confused, they abused and defiled one another, women with women, men with men—all lust, no love. And then they paid for it, oh, how they paid for it—emptied of God and love, godless and loveless wretches." -Rom. 1:26-27, (The Message)
"We also know that the law is not made for good people but for those who are against the law and for those who refuse to follow it. It is for people who are against God and are sinful, who are unholy and ungodly, who kill their fathers and mothers, who murder, who take part in sexual sins, who have sexual relations with people of the same sex, who sell slaves, who tell lies, who speak falsely, and who do anything against the true teaching of God." -I Timothy 1:9-10, (New Century Version)
Now, it should be noted that all of these verses are excerpts from letters by the apostle Paul to their respective recipients. Before taking them at face value, listen to what the apostle Peter had to say about Paul's writings:
2 Peter 3:15-17 "You can be sure the long waiting of our Lord is part of His plan to save men from the punishment of sin. God gave our dear brother Paul the wisdom to write about this also. He wrote about these things in all of his writings. Some of these things are hard to understand. People who do not have much understanding and some who are not strong in the faith change the meaning of his letters. They do this to the other parts of the Holy Writings also. They are destroying themselves as they do this. And so, dear friends, now that you know this, watch so you will not be led away by the mistakes of these sinful people. Do not be moved by them." (New Life Version)
With this warning in mind, it should be noted that the very word 'homosexual' and phrases specifically referring to sex between people of the same gender for the previous condemning verses are NOT found in all Bible translations across the board.
Each translation reflects the world-view, beliefs, and mind set of its translators. Their personal biases distort their work. It is therefore no wonder that many have wished to know what the original text actually said. The National Gay Pentecostal Alliance (NGPA) has analyzed the Leviticus verse in great detail to produce a word-for-word translation of the original Hebrew. In English, with minimal punctuation added, they rendered it as: "And with a male thou shalt not lie down in beds of a woman; it is an abomination." That is, rather than forbidding homosexuality, it simply restricts where it can happen. This may seem like a strange prohibition to us today, but it was consistent with other laws in Leviticus which involve improper mixing of things that should be kept separate. Much of Leviticus deals with the "Levitical Holiness Code," a code of conduct that was part of a covenant that prohibited the children of Israel from participating in the religious rituals of the Canaanites once they entered the promised land. They were not to eat with, intermarry, worship with or in a similar manner to the Canaanites. They were to remain "holy" or set apart. In obeying this covenant, they would prove themselves to be God's chosen people.
Since women were thought to be unclean during certain times of month, they had beds of their own. Only her husband was permitted there, and then only for the purpose of having sex with her. Any other use of her bed would have been a defilement. An argument against this interpretation is that it would not go well with the next verse that discusses a man or a woman engaging in bestiality. However, in defense of the NGPA translation, there is already a break in topic between verses 21 and 22 which prohibits children being sacrificed to Molech. So a second break between verses 22 and 23 would not be unreasonable.
The seriousness of this crime in Hebrew eyes was made worse by the belief that 'to lie with a man as with a woman' violated the dignity of the male gender. Women were considered property but men were the direct image of God. To treat a man the way a woman was treated was to reduce him to property and, thus, to violate the image of God.
Those who thump their Bibles against the gay community complain that the scriptures which attack women, children and people of color are being taken out of context. In the case against homosexuality, I accuse these people of the same crime.
Religion is supposed to help people. How does condemning homosexuality help anyone? Is it because homosexual couples can't produce offspring? Today people are growing healthier and living longer due to modern technology. Infertile couples have the options of in-vitro fertilization, surrogacy, and adoption. With the world population estimated to have hit 7 billion people in the year 2012, humans are hardly in danger of dying out.
Is it because the AIDs epidemic started with homosexual men? Why should the victims be blamed? If every homosexual in the world turned straight overnight, would the AIDs virus cease to exist? Of course not. AIDs isn't caused by homosexuality, it isn't transmitted by casual contact with homosexuals, it isn't cured by sexual intercourse with a virgin, and it won't stop spreading until people are educated about it, learn to practice safe-sex, and stop sharing contaminated needles.
The senseless fear and hatred of homosexuals has to stop. Otherwise we will continue to hear about tragedies like the police officer who denied a gay man CPR, the young boy beaten to death on the mere suspicion of being gay, and the gay teenager struggling with social hostility and isolation who turns to suicide as a solution to their pain.
Today, laws against homosexuality still exist around the world. The punishments range from a fine and 3 years incarceration in Algeria to being put to death in places like Saudi Arabia. There currently exist groups here in the U.S. like the Traditional Values Coalition, Focus on the Family, and the American Family Association, that are dedicated to the promotion of anti-homosexual legislation: to prevent them from being a protected class against hate-crimes, from getting legally married, from adopting children or serving as foster parents, and even to deny their families health care.
As a country founded by people seeking to escape religious persecution, for having beliefs that differed from the norm, as a country that established a democracy proclaiming that "All men are created equal" why do we try so hard to make others conform to our personal way of life and scorn those who have the courage to stand their ground?
We need to give homosexuals the chance to live normal lives; to accept them for who they are without making them feel shame, guilt, or unworthiness; to address them and treat them in a civil manner and accord them their dignity; to give them back their unalienable rights guaranteed to them as human beings and under the United States Declaration of Independence, their rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Chief Justice Earl Warren presided in the 1967 Supreme Court case "Loving v. Virginia" involving an interracial couple, and he wrote: "The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."
I hope this provoked some thought, and that everyone will agree that there are no moral nor practical grounds to condemn homosexuality, that the biblical law is set to the standards of an out-dated code of conduct, and I hope that we learn, once again, that it is wrong to hate someone simply because they are different.
Related content
Comments: 1274
There never has, nor ever will be, a completely evil nation. By the same token, there never has, nor ever will be, a completely good nation. Such things only exist in fairy tales, as human nature does not allow for such extremes.
Religion might not be the only cause of war, but it is certainly the only cause of "Holy" wars, a bizarre phenomenon in which religions fight each other to see which one is more "peaceful".
Beg: (verb) to ask earnestly or humbly for something.
So yes, your god demands begging in exchange for helping humans, and readily attacks them when it benefits his "chosen" people, similar to protection rackets run by crime lords in their willingness to deploy violent retribution, going as far as premeditated murder.
Your god can supposedly make it rain food (mana), and coax drinking water come out of rocks, but killing them or letting them die of hunger are the only options you can think of?
I always find it amusing when an atheist knows your holy book better than you do. Just take it on faith that gutting pregnant women and breaking rocks with baby skulls somehow makes the world a better place. It doesn't matter if you can't find the quote anywhere. By your own definition it's not evil since your god commanded it, and your god does not command evil.
Even the bible has an updated language version that makes its text smoother and less tedious to read.
Okay, you have shown me evidence of Jews being spoken highly of in your book, so now I can do one of two things:
1. Be reasonable and admit you were right
2. Dismiss your evidence and twist reality until I set up a system that makes my ideals immune from criticism (as you did when I asked if there anything your god could command, commit, or condone that would make you think he was evil).
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well, that is a bold statement. When you can prove that every nation ever has good people in it, talk to me.
Holy wars are stupid, I know. They are cruel and selfish, and, especially the Crusades, have terrible results.
Humble: to have an open heart.
So yes, God will only kill in extreme cases when:
Every person left is evil (the righteous have been killed or escaped)
They have been repeatedly warned
They deny all warnings. Even then, they have the capacity to come unto Christ, in the spirit world.
Well, here is the point on this death matter. You are so focused on the death, and so blinded to the fact that we have lived before birth, will live after death, and we will all be resurrected in a perfect body. You see the child's death as murderous, evil. But, God loves all of His children. Consider the blessing that these children will never have to experience the hardships of the Earth anymore. They can grow in a peaceful, paradisiacal place. You suggest that God could keep them on the Earth and have them not die, and that is true. But the short moment of death they had was followed even to this day by peace and growth.
I find it sad that atheists don't understand the point of the Bible. You claim to know more than I do, because you can pull up a verse to slander people with. I try to know why. I know for a certainty that the Book of Mormon is the word of God, and so is the Bible, as far as it is translated correctly. I know the importance of Moses's law, of the necessity of a Fall, of an Atonement, the nature of God. All you know is the verses that you wish to argue with. Besides these facts... why don't I need to know where the verse is? Am I honestly supposed to trust your word that He said it?
Yes, it has a "modern version", which goes under mistranslated. The closest to the original text, the better. It is the same logic as why Shakespeare is so much deeper and multi-meaningful when in its original form.
I do not twist logic, or truth, I attempt to broaden your view from right now to eternity.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You can't prove that I'm wrong, either.
Your god does not kill in extreme cases. Your god goes to extremes in all cases. Even in your example you admit that he kills the righteous before he kills the evil. That's akin to the spirit of Holy Wars: "Kill them all, let God sort them out!"
Either killing the innocent is wrong or it isn't.
You weasel your way out of answering with a definitive 'yes is it' or 'no, it isn't' every time I ask, which goes to show how easily Holy Wars get out of hand, because the religious leaders are not bothered in the least about killing innocent people.
During the Salem Witch Trials a popular method of determining whether or not a someone was a witch was to drown them. If they survived, they must have used witchcraft and would be killed immediately after. If they died, they were innocent and their soul would go up to heaven. Either way, the person died. Countless innocent people were murdered this way, but the church had a completely clear conscience because of the same twisted logic you keep spouting.
I purposely hide the location of the verse to test you. Without knowing if what I said is scripture or not... do you recognize the act of gutting pregnant women and dashing little ones on the ground as an evil act? Yes or No?
If you do recognize it as evil, and I later show you the chapter and verse where I found it, would you:
1. Be reasonable and admit that I was right and your god has commanded an evil act?
2. Dismiss my evidence and use twisted logic to defend your god's murderous bloodlust?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Goes to extremes in all cases? Again, how many people out of the total population of humans ever on the Earth have died in the Bible? And how many of those were directly done by God? Not many.
Hm. I'll answer all of these statements at once. God did not kill these people. He does not kill the righteous in the city; if it need be, such as in the cases of Lehi, Abraham, etc., God will often send out the righteous and bless them. Other times, the wicked in the societies kill them. Not God, the people. The people that kill and capture the Samaritans (Hosea 13:16 btw), was not God, and was not ordered by Him. It was a prophecy of what would happen to them because of their vanity and perversion of the gospel. It was God stating how terrible, and how sad the death of these innocents would be, because they were wicked. So, call it 'weaseling out', but my answer is Yes, it is cruel, but no, God is not the commiter of these events.
The Holy Wars were religions who had strayed from God's organized church, such as Catholicism and Islam, who were warring for their own desires, with claims of being told by God to do it. Same as with the Witch Trials. Such similar patterns occur all through the Old Testament and the Book of Mormon (which I still encourage you read entirely), where people twist the truth, and suffer wars and death from it. The murder of people for the sake of some false gospel has occurred often, and still does (Westboro Baptists, why?). I do not twist the logic in any manner. God very rarely is involved with the death of anyone. It is the failures and wickedness of man that brings their death (in these cases; obviously not everyone that dies is evil), which God commands prophets like Hosea to warn the wicked about. God is trying to save them from the death of their innocents.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It's a big hint something is wrong with your religion when someone has to spend weeks trying to convince you that killing innocent people, babies, and pregnant women is wrong, and you should stop doing it.
If you're telling me that this physical existence is temporary and the only existence that matters is life after death, then the logical conclusion would be to kill not only yourself, but your loved ones as well.
I see you want to keep playing lawyer to a homicidal maniac. Fine, let's play.
By your same logic, Hitler never killed any Jews either. The attempts repeatedly made by him to induce the governments of other states to collaborate with him in a reconstruction of Europe resemble an ever-recurring pattern in his conduct since the commencement of his labors for the German Reich. But these attempts were wrecked every time by reason of the fact that nowhere was there any willingness to give them due consideration, because the evil spirit of the Great War still prevailed everywhere, because in London and Paris and in the capitals of the Western Powers' vassal states there was only one fixed intention: to perpetuate the power of Versailles!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You obviously don't understand my religion if you spend weeks trying to convince me of something I already know, that the murder of innocents is evil and accountable to the person who did it. The Assyrians killed the pregnant and the children of Samaria, not God. He did not want them to die, but because of their wickedness, He could not abide with them and protect them, be suss they would not accept His help or His existence.
I am not telling you that all that matters is the destination. I am saying to consider it; death is not the end. When it is due time, each person will die. We are here to become like God. We are here to have and do and act with a physical body.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Obviously you don't already know it if you have the audacity to believe anyone could kill babies "in self-defense".
Make up your mind. Are humans better off dead or aren't they? It's fine that death is a natural part of life, but only religion would try to glorify it.
"Few of us know by what death we will glorify God, but we can be assured of this: everything happens for God’s glory. No matter how tragic, no matter how seemingly untimely, every death brings glory to God in some way."
It’s enough to make you look forward to the day of your death, isn't it? What an encouragement! Death and suffering lie at the heart of your religion. Even if you want to deny this, it's hard to deny that the suffering and death of Jesus on the cross is the central defining event and idea.
Everything you believe about yourself as a faithful devotee, about humanity, about your religion, and about your god hinges on this. You can take away the Sermon on the Mount and other events in scripture without completely overturning what your religion is. Even the one other thing which arguably stands on the same level -- the Resurrection -- is completely dependent upon the suffering and death of the Crucifixion, which makes it more fundamental than the Resurrection.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You got that from a YouTube video I watched last week. It was a fun one.
Death is a problem, at its core. But we all die, and I am trying to explain how that doesn't automatically mean sentence to heaven or hell, or an end of existence.
The reason our religion focuses on death, no let me broaden that, focuses on the Fall so much, is be queen you must understand the fall in order to understand the Atonement.
Read 2 Nephi 2, it is quite good at explaining this. Because of the Fall, we are able to understand and choose right and wrong, and have birth. But, we are also susceptible to sin and death. The Fall gives us the capacity to choose and become perfect, like God (as the Sermon on the Mount says we must be to enter God's kingdom). Now, the problem comes from sin and death. Because of these other affects of the Fall, we can't be perfect (a.k.a complete, finished, developed from Greek), on our own. We need a Savior.
Jesus Christ (quoting Alma 7:11-13) suffered "pains and afflictions and temptations of every kind... and he will take upon him death, that he may loose the bands of death which burn his people... Now the Spirit knoweth all things; nevertheless the Son of God suffereth according to the flesh that he might take upon him the sins of his people, that he might blot out their transgressions..."
He paid the price of sins in the Garden of Gethsemane, and He died. His Resurrection, or the loosing of the bands of death, is the end of the single most important event in human history since the Fall, and ever will be. Though His death certainly was necessary for the Ressurection to occur, the Ressurection is still more crucial. Yes, you can't get to a destination without taking a step, but if the destination isn't met, the step is pointless. The worth of the journey is the destination; the death of Christ, itself, doesn't do much, except have a dead person. It is the resurrection that saves us from death, and that one day all who have lived on this earth will again live. The resurrection is what is fundamental, because aye didn't just die for me, He lives for me.
I do not exactly have a giddy feeling about death,especially at 14 years of age, but I do not need to fear it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You continue to avoid giving me a straight answer, instead you go weaving in and around different rationalizations. Are humans better off dead or aren't they?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
What you, I think, intend to ask, is whether humans should all kill themselves, or death shouldn't happen at all. Both are wrong. For some, and eventually nearly everyone, it is time to leave the Earth. We are intended to live forever, and we will, in a perfected body at the resurrection. Lives that were not fulfilled can be, children who have died and grow up with their parents, etc.
We are infinitely better off alive, but a temporary death will happen to us, at one point or another.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Many people, myself included, don't need belief in an afterlife, so your assurances are worthless.
If it's true that we are better off alive then, then your god should NEVER use death as a means to an end. There are plenty of non-violent ways to resolve conflict. If your god is too limited in his thinking to figure out what those ways are, it seriously brings his qualifications as a competent ruler into question.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yes, many non-violent ways exist. When they don't work, and because God will never force anyone to do something, He is left without options.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Then your god is useless
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
So, you, a person who doesn't even believe in God to begin with, are accusing the Creator of Morality and Justice of being unjust? God has literally given us everything -- a body, a life, an earth... honestly, what can He take away that wouldn't be just? But, He doesn't.
Let's look at history; how often has God killed? Well, very few. VERY few. Who is it that he has killed? Just willy-nilly whoever ticks him off? Well, if that was true, we'd all be dead. But He hasn't. He has given to us all that we have freely, and we are free to make choices, even to the point of them harming others sometimes. He sets laws, and He upholds them. He'd be unjust if he didn't. In the Flood, for example, He gave the people 100 years to repent. 100! But, as the Holy Ghost tells Nephi in 1 Nephi 4:13, "Behold the Lord slayeth the wicked to bring forth his righteous purposes. It is better that (the few wicked) should die than that a nation should dwindle and perish in unbelief."
Useless? What would you suggest He do, to a group of disgustingly wicked, absolutely unrepentant people? You accuse an omnipotent being of being less intelligent than you? What do you want Him to do? Be unjust and unmerciful to His other children who would have to continue to suffer from the wicked?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Your god is only one of a plethora to whom life is attributed. He can stand in line if he wants to claim credit for that.
Let's forget about history for now and talk about your current god. He can't save a woman being raped. He can't help someone file their taxes. He can't even take the lid off my pickle jar when it gets stuck. For all intents and purposes, your god is useless.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Forget history? I thought your whole freaking argument was entirely centered on past events in the Old Testament! I'll be darned!
Well, for all intents and purposes, if we are arguing about the God I know to exist and my beliefs about Him, then another is that I know He created us.
What, and take away our agency? Control our lives? I thought atheists hated that about God and religion -- being 'controlling'. We have come to this earth for a purpose, to have difficulties. He has let us choose to come here, and choose to have a body and these trials. He let Eve choose to eat the fruit, and He let Christ choose to suffer the pains of the world.
Terrible things happen to people. But, a lot of them don't happen. Who are you to say that God has not done a thing in this world? Are you suddenly omnipresent, too? How are you to say all that He has saved you from, and you have absolutely NO idea that He has?
He may not always prevent terrible things; He lets us choose. But, I know personally a victim of rape. It is hard, very hard, to overcome such painful things. But, God will never allow a trial we can not overcome. He is waiting with open arms, and by prayer she has had the Spirit to comfort her. By study she has had knowledge to strengthen her faith. By action she has been made happier. She is a wonderful woman. God has lifted her up, when she was willing to look for Him.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You yourself said that the bible is a mistranslated, misinterpreted, and otherwise maliciously altered text, and dismiss any and all evidence I use from it. Now you want to validate it? I'll be darned!
As I said before, personal revelation is not evidence for anyone else besides you, and is therefore useless to convince others.
When a girl's mother was being raped, she escaped and called 911.
When my neighbor needed to file his taxes he went to H & R Block.
When I need the lid on my pickle jar removed, I ask my brother to do it for me.
In none of these cases is agency taken away from anyone. It's a sick and vulgar idea to say that our purpose on Earth is to suffer difficulties. Nobody's life is perfect, however, that isn't grounds to conclude that we should allow ourselves to be taken advantage of or that we don't deserve to be helped in times of need.
The world your god lives in is a magical land of giants, dragons, unicorns, talking snakes and donkeys. The world we live in is the real world, which does not run on magic.
"If you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there,' and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you."
When Mount Everest suddenly pops up in the middle of New York City, then come talk to me.
There was a news article a few years ago about an 11 year old girl who's father lured her into their family basement, drugged, and handcuffed her before locking her up for 24 years. I repeat: Twenty... four... years.
During that time he would regularly go down into the basement to rape her. She gave birth to 7 children, including twins, one of whom died in just 3 days. No hospital, no doctors, no social support. The father removed the body and burnt it.
Your utterly and completely useless god can go to hell.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I used that for 1 scripture. Literally, one.
Of course we shouldn't sit there and let terrible things to happen to us, and we are blessed with people who help us, like 911 and your brother. But, terrible things do happen. You misunderstand; we are not here to get beat up, we are here to not only endure but rise from trials. You strengthen muscles by breaking them. No pain, no gain. You learn in school through homework and tests. Trials make you stronger. That is one reason we have chosen to come here.
The world God has created works on science, law, math, etc. Remember when scientists were called magicians? God operates by the priesthood, and so does His church. It likely could be explained by science, when it has the capacity to. Remember when the "real world" didn't include the Americas?
I could list miracles that have occurred in these days, but you'd shove them off as fictional, coincidental, or unprovable.
As I have said... terrible things are done by people. As I've used before, Alma 14 speaks of this. Women and children are burned at a mass pit by men who hate them for believing the gospel. Amulek asks Alma why they should not save them with the power they possess. Alma replies that in this instance, God has allowed the evils to occur, and has done so that the judgements to be made to them at the last judgement will be justified, for the innocent's burnt blood will cry out against them as testimony of their evils. The killed, the draped, the insulted, the used and enslaved innocents will all be given eternity of peace, of love, and eternal life.
As God revealed to Joseph Smith while he was locked in Liberty Jail on non-existant charges, his afflictions "will be for but a small moment." Months, in the jail, with scarce food and no sanitation? Years, with a vile father draping her daughter? Life, for children born in poverty and sickness, taken to the concentration camps of Germany, or of name-your-place? But you miss the big picture. Compared to eternity, what but a small moment are these trials which other humans have given them, or people have given themselves?
You see God as unjust, as unmerciful, as useless, because you see bad things happen to others and possibly yourself. But I have seen to an astounding degree how blessed so many of all beliefs and knowledges are in their lives, even with such tragedies in their lives. Choose how you wish to see the world, but I see the good.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Tell that to all the people who commit suicide because their "trials" were more than they could bare.
Science, law, and math do not account for giants, dragons, unicorns, talking snakes and donkeys. This is Harry Potter territory. So unless you're going to tell me that Dumbledore is actually your god and heaven is actually Hogwarts, you've got nothing.
The happy afterlife you speak of is only encouragement for those suffering to take their own lives. A god that allows evil to happen is a useless god. At least, he is useless to good people. You know who was best friends with your god? Hitler! The Nazis all had "God with us" stamped on their belt buckles as they shoveled the “Jewish Bolshevist demons" into the crematoriums.
Did you know that the word "holocaust" derives from the Ancient Greek holocaustos, and is a religious animal sacrifice that is completely consumed by fire? Hitler knew this, and also that "the priest shall burn all of it (the animal sacrifice) on the altar, as a burnt offering, a food offering with a pleasing aroma to the Lord." The Jews were as animals, Hitler was the priest, and the smell of burning flesh was a pleasing aroma to the Lord.
"To the common man religion is true, to the wise it is false, and to the rulers it is useful"
Guess into which category each of us (you, Hitler, and I) fall in the above quote?
I don't need a god to see the good in the world. You seem to think that atheists believe that life is meaningless. On the contrary, I am quite sure that life is precious. My relationships with those I love are meaningful now; they need not last forever to be made so.
We are also not closed to spiritual experience. There is nothing that prevents an atheist from experiencing love, ecstasy, rapture and awe; atheists can value these experiences and seek them regularly. What atheists don't tend to do is make unjustified (and unjustifiable) claims about the nature of reality on the basis of such experiences. There is no question that some Christians have transformed their lives for the better by reading the Bible and praying to Jesus. What does this prove? It proves that certain disciplines of attention and codes of conduct can have a profound effect upon the human mind. Do the positive experiences of Christians suggest that Jesus is the sole savior of humanity? Not even remotely — because Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims and even atheists regularly have similar experiences.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I appreciate your strong opinions.
I never said you couldn't have spiritual experiences. Anyone can do good, be good, and be joyful.
We are here by our own choice, and we will experience difficulties. Precious is this life, because it is a place where we can change our natures, and choose and become good. You do not have to believe these truths entirely to be good... but they don't stop then from being true anyways.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
And yet what constitutes a "good" person is what we're debating. You claim homosexuals can't make happy families, can't be good parents, and deny that they are discriminated against in society.
"they can't see each other in a hospital! They need tax reductions!"
They can't see each other? Tell me, where'd you hear that?
Back in 2007 Janice Langbehn was barred from her seeing her partner, Lisa Pond, at Jackson Memorial Hospital in Miami for eight hours after Lisa suffered an aneurysm. The couple had raised three adopted teenage children and been together nearly 18 years. Lisa later died without Janice or their 3 children able to say goodbye, because according to the law, they didn't have a "legally recognized relationship".
The couple's story, and forced separation during Lisa's dying hours, made major headlines and inspired President Obama to pursue a change to government regulations.
abcnews.go.com/Politics/hospit…
Despite that, just last year another gay man, Roger Gorley, was arrested when he refused to leave the bedside of his husband (by way of civil union), Allen Mansell. Roger was asked to leave the hospital by Mansell's brother, Lee Mansell. When he refused, the nurse called security to escort him out, even though Allen requested his husband should stay.
www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04…
And these are only a few examples. Even today we have people running for office in the Senate, like Republican Cory Gardner, who consistently vote towards banning same-sex couples from adopting children, allowing LGBT discrimination, and opposing granting hospital visitation rights to same-sex couples in his home state.
www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05…
All because your god demonizes homosexuality and protects those who discriminate against homosexuals. Here again your god is useful to the wicked and useless to the righteous.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
What is the optimal family? Well, all members love each other. Of course. Can people of the same sec love each other? I live my brothers, so, yes, though I don't suppose in the same way as I'll love the womon I will marry. But, what is the BEST CASE scenerio?
Well, logically, and as multiple social and psychological surveys and experiments have shown, it is a mother and father that love each other and their children. This is the BEST for the growth of a child; it gives them knowledge from a mom and dad who gave birth to them, and it shows the aspects of men and women from infancy to the child in positive ways.
Shouldn't government then maintain this distinction between those in marriage and those who are in other relationships? Not to say we should hate or be anti-anyone, or unjustly discriminate -- you bring valid points. I simply wish to maintain the sanctity of the bond of a man and a woman.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Benjamin Siegel, a School of Medicine professor of pediatrics, coauthored a report, published by the American Academy of Pediatrics, showing three decades of research concurring that kids of gay parents are doing just fine.
pediatrics.aappublications.org…
Many studies have demonstrated that children's well-being is affected much more by their relationships with their parents, their parents' sense of competence and security, and the presence of social and economic support for the family than by the gender or the sexual orientation of their parents.
williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu…
www.gao.gov/new.items/d11264.pdf
www.lgbtmap.org/file/all-child…
www.census.gov/hhes/samesex/files/ss-report.doc
www.aap.org/en-us/advocacy-and…
Lack of opportunity for same-gender couples to marry adds to families’ stress, which affects the health and welfare of all household members. Because marriage strengthens families and, in so doing, benefits children’s development, children should not be deprived of the opportunity for their parents to be married.
The sanctity of straight marriage is a purely religious concept. If the U.S were a theocracy, you might have some legitimacy, but it's not. So we would all appreciate religious zealots keeping their marital sanctity, garments of the holy priesthood, E-meters, exorcisms, Kaparots, Shamans, and baptisms OUT of secular government.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
First, recognize that adoptions, and therefore all same-sex couples, are EXCEPTIONS. It occurs only when the natural parents of the children are incapable, unwilling, or not responsible enough to take care of their child. Finding some duct-tape solution to the gaping hole caused by adoptions, especially same-sex adoptions, by simply saying "you're married!" isn't going to solve the problem. What government should be doing is ENCOURAGING heterosexual relationships, and PROMOTING the raising of children in the homes of their actual parents.
The major problem in society today is that nobody cares about the core family. We disregard the essential knowledges gained from both a mother and father.
You are absolutely correct. Sanctity of marriage is a purely religious concept. So keep your secular worldviews out of its definition.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Not all gay couples adopt children. Biological children happen when gays who have tried being straight have children from previous relationships. Others get biological children from artificial insemination (if they're lesbians) or surrogacy (if they're gay).
Anyone who has a true desire to give a child a family, to help a child move on in life, and give a child a scintillating future, should not be refused the opportunity to do so simply because they are not YOUR ideal. I adopted my son 7 years ago and am a single mother. I would fight tooth and nail anyone who tried to take my baby from me because my marital status or sexual orientation doesn't suit their ideals. Nobody can doubt my love for my adopted child or accuse me of not doing all I could to give him a happy life. I am deeply insulted that you would call me a "duct-tape solution".
Government is under obligation to do no such thing. Government is about NOT discriminating against people, so if they promote adoption, it should be for qualified couples and individuals -regardless of race, ethnicity, marital status, gender, religion, sexual orientation, or disability:
- be at least 21 years of age, financially stable, and responsible mature adults,
- provide relative and non-relative references,
- agree to a home study which includes visits with all household members,
- allow staff to complete a criminal history background check and an abuse/neglect check on all adults in the household, and
- attend free training to learn about issues of abused and neglected children.
If marriage was a strictly religious concept, I would keep my secular worldviews out of its definition. But it's not. It's a government sanctioned event requiring legal documentation to be valid. Until that is no longer the case, it remains secular.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I never said adoption could or should not happen; let me be perfectly honest in saying that I deeply respect women that can extend their motherhood beyond their own biological children. I simply note an apparently forgotten truth that children's birth parents should be encouraged to be responsible and ready to take care of a child before they decide to participate in intercourse. I worry of the children growing up in families without a mother or a father, not because they will necessarily do worse in life (surely many succeed in doing amazing feats). Rather, I worry that so many children are growing up not knowing their birth parents, not knowing what they will be obligated to do as a dad or mom, and being unsure of the importance of strong and lasting relationships in some adoptive cases (I of course can not say anything about your personal child).
Government is about more than rights. It seems to be all we hear about -- let the government give us this, that, everything! But the government should also be responsible in holding up a standard, or at the least encouraging greater responsibility of the citizens. This is why I discourage government envolvement in abortion fundings, or in handing birth control in schools. Sure, these things can still be chosen by people. But, the government should distinguish the commitments of a man and a woman who promise to love and strengthen each other, and if possible raise children through nurture and guidance.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Finally, we agree on something. People need to exercise sexual responsibility. Where we differ is how to make that happen. I think they should be educated and have easy access to birth control. You believe they should inhibit their sexual desires by sheer force of will...
You'd have better luck convincing humans to castrate themselves.
Nothing inspires murderous mayhem in human beings more reliably than sexual repression. Denied food, water, or freedom of movement, people will get desperate and some may lash out at what they perceive as the source of their problems, albeit in a weakened state. But if expression of sexuality is thwarted, the human psyche tends to grow twisted into grotesque, enraged perversions of desire.
Just look at the effect this has had on religious leaders, holy men whose very job description expect celibacy. Look how desensitized society has become to scandals involving pedophile priests and anti-gay preachers later found soliciting gay prostitutes. This is because the distorted rage resulting from sexual repression rarely takes the form of rebellion against the people and institutions behind the repression. Instead, it is generally directed at helpless victims who are trapped by guilt, shame, and ignorant pride.
Yes, it would be very nice if all children could grow up in a warm loving family with both male and female role models. I do not agree that those role models should exclusively be restricted to the parents. Extended family members can become involved. A long-term friend of the family, a person from the family's faith community, perhaps a co-worker, or a member of a mentoring organization. A retirement community may be a great place to find an opposite sex person who has time and experience and willing to share their time and wisdom with a child.
Abortions and birth control are necessary for the health of society. Desperate women will be left with the only option of illegal abortions, in which they risk prison, serious health consequences, social stigma, and even death. Every year, millions of women are hospitalized after botched or incomplete abortions, according to the Ministry of Health. Seeking treatment for complications like infection, hemorrhaging and hypertension, they can face neglect or abuse by hospital staff because of the cultural stigma associated with the procedure.
“Some hospitals won’t use proper anesthesia on these women,” explains Simon Diniz, a professor of maternal health at the University of Sao Paulo. Though they are not required to, hospital staff will sometimes report these women to the police, who may arrest them.
You can demonize these women all you want, call them sluts, or whores, or whatever shaming word is your favorite. But the typical profile of a woman who has complications from abortions and survives is aged 22 to 29, black, poor, Catholic and in a committed relationship.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Actually, from a study by the FBI and a testimony from Ted Bundy, the most common similarity between serial killers is pornography. Nothing enflames murderous rage more than addictions, particularly sexual ones. I know a huge number of people that keep fidelity to their wife, and have no sex before marriage. If we are talking about sexual responsibility, perhaps we should change the cultures we live in that promote sexual irresponsibility first, rather than hand birth control in schools (which will also promote sexual behavior).
I agree on having other role models. But, parents need to be the primary and unbending source of morals and behaviors.
When I said don't get the government involved, I didn't mean make abortion illegal. I want government to not fund them, or endorse them. The only conditions I feel abortion really ought to be considered by the mother is in the case of rape, or that the child or mother will die form the birth.
I do not enjoy those words, and will not use them. No person should be shut down with such language.
In the case of birth control, shouldn't you be intending to have a child if you're having sex? And if they are just in it for the..., then they likely didn't plan ahead and bring birth control anyways. Birth control and elective abortions, honestly, are immature attempts to nullify consequences for someone's actions.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Who's talking about serial killers? I'm talking about people who are considered "normal". Many societies around the world place restrictions on the sex lives of their citizens, often with heavy consequences should an individual deviate from what is considered acceptable in that society. Adulterers, unwed lovers, homosexuals, and even people caught in the act of masturbating have been institutionalized, tortured, mutilated, or even executed. Care to show me your FBI study linking pornography to serial killers?
Legalizing pornography: Lower sex crime rates:
(Rape and other sex crimes have not increased following the legalization and wide availability of pornography)
www.sciencedaily.com/releases/…
Porn: Good for us:
(Scientific examination of the subject has found that as the use of porn increases, the rate of sex crimes goes down)
www.the-scientist.com/?article…
Pornography, Rape and Sex Crimes in Japan:
(Increase in available pornography in Japan has been correlated with a dramatic decrease in sexual crimes and most so among youngsters as perpetrators or victims)
www.hawaii.edu/PCSS/biblio/art…
How the Web Prevents Rape:
(A 10 percent increase in Net access yields about a 7.3 percent decrease in reported rapes)
www.slate.com/articles/arts/ev…
Sexual Crime in India: Is it Influenced by Pornography?
(Easy access to pornography did not have a significant impact on rape rates and crime rate against women)
www.academia.edu/6788704/Sexua…
Birth control does not promote sexual behavior. Puberty promotes sexual behavior. Hormones promote sexual behavior. Males reach the peak of their sex drive in their teens, while females reach it in their thirties. All humans eventually discover that touching their genitals makes them feel good. Once this discovery has been made, there is little chance of stopping them from seeking it out. You can ground them, forbid them, even terrify them with stories of Hell fire... they'll find a way to do it behind your back. Studies have shown that 46% of high school students are sexually active; 6% by the time they're 13. 14% of high school students have had 4 or more partners. 82% of teen pregnancies are unplanned and of this group 50% will have an abortion. These high statistics on teenage pregnancy are caused by a lack of proper sexual education at home or school. The lack of knowledge about intercourse, abortion, and birth control has led to myths and misconceptions about the experience and results.
Some teens believe that if a girl doesn't climax, she won't get pregnant. They don't consider that a man releases sperm regardless of what the girl does. Another myth is that if a girl uses feminine cleaning products after sex, like a douche, she can clean the sperm off. Unfortunately, sperm are out of reach by then. Some believe having sex in a certain position or at a certain time during the girl's ovulation cycle constitutes safe sex. Others believe a balloon or plastic bag is just as good as a condom.
As you can see, teens do attempt to take precautions, but those precautions are worthless when the information is stupid nonsense.
"Shouldn't you be intending to have a child if you're having sex?"
Of course not. This is a ridiculous idea. Not even your bible claims this. In the Song of Solomon it talks of a married man and woman enjoying many moments of passionate sexual intimacy. "But they're married!" you might argue. "It doesn't count!" Regardless of their marital status, my point is that in no place in the book do you find procreation being discussed.
- Intimacy
- Song 1:13 , "My beloved is to me a pouch of myrrh which lies all night between my breasts."
- Song 1:13 , "My beloved is to me a pouch of myrrh which lies all night between my breasts."
- Companionship
- Song 3:1 , "On my bed night after night I sought him whom my soul loves..."
- Song 3:1 , "On my bed night after night I sought him whom my soul loves..."
- Physical Pleasure
- Song 1:2 , "May he kiss me with the kisses of his mouth! For your love is better than wine."
Christianity inherited the silly notion from Paul, who believed that the Second Coming would occur during their lifetimes, making sex an unnecessary distraction. When that didn't happen, the attitude got carried over, although they did accept the need to raise another generation. It still underlies all of Christianity.
Judaism, on the other hand, has a very long and rich tradition of recognizing, and encouraging, the importance of sex for healthy relationships. It's even regarded as a way of fulfilling the commandment to beautify Shabbat.
I have already explained what happens to poverty stricken women whose access to birth control is restricted or removed entirely. The religious war on birth control is actually a war on women, their health, and their career options. There's a saying: "Men use love to get sex, women use sex to get love. More often than not, it's the men who get what they want, and the women who are left pregnant and alone."
Anyone can walk into a convenience store and purchase over-the-counter condoms. However, some men refuse to wear them because it doesn't feel "natural" and thus the responsibility of preventing unwanted children falls on the woman, who can only obtain birth control with a doctor's prescription... which, thanks to religious zealots, is getting harder and harder to do each year.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yes, of course handing out birth control in schools promotes sexual behavior. It says: "We know you'll do it, here's something to get rid of those nasty consequences... mlif it works."
Your argument seems to be more focused on, again, duct-taping the problem of growing teenage sex with birth control, abortion, and pornography. Rather, I suggest changing the culture that's encouraging it; get rid of porn, change public attitudes, etc, because sexual urges do not control us, and we shouldn't throw in the towel and look for some way to nullify the consequences associated with early sex.
Besides rape (in which the woman isn't gonna have the time for birth control), isn't all sex by choice? So, the woman would plan ahead of time, wouldn't she?
Look on the bright side. We agree that fornication, rape, and adultery are all wrong. We jusst disagree on what is wrong with them...
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
So either your FBI study doesn't exist or you're too lazy to find it? That goes to show how much you care about the truth.
That's called being responsible. If you know how kids are, you'd know that just telling them "Don't do it" is pointless.
The story of Adam and Eve shows just how willfully ignorant religion is of how human nature works. A supposedly all-knowing god tells Adam and Even not to eat the fruit of a forbidden tree and has the gall to be surprised when he comes back? It doesn't occur to him to have guards posted by the tree, have an electric fence around the tree, or maybe NOT leave dangerous things within the reach of his children in the first place? That's like leaving a loaded gun on the kitchen table.
There's a a laboratory study where boys aged 8-12 are told there's a gun in a certain room, and their parents tell them not to touch it, that it's dangerous, and they could get seriously hurt. The boys are then left alone while cameras watch what they do.
The results are chilling.
75% found the gun; nearly 50% handled it; and 25% pulled the trigger.
In lab test, boys find hidden gun and pull trigger
usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/h…
Ignore the truth at your own risk. This is why states whose residents have more conservative religious beliefs on average tend to have higher rates of teenagers giving birth.
Teen Birth Rates Higher in Highly Religious States
www.livescience.com/5728-teen-…
I grant you that our culture could do with being less sexualized, however, demonizing sexuality is not an adequate solution. The urges are THERE, hardwired into our DNA. Bottling up those urges, as you suggest, is the real duct-tape solution.
Now, I realize that education and easy access alone is not enough. The highest risk factors continue to be socio-economic ones: poverty, unemployment, and low self-esteem.
"the woman would plan ahead of time, wouldn't she?"
That would require contraception, a thing that religious conservatives don't want women to have and actively work towards denying it to them. The only other option is to never ever have sex... ever, unless the woman wants children.
We cannot ignore realities: 70 percent of young people will have sex by the age of 19; 95 percent of people will have sex before they are married. Abstinence-only-until marriage programs are unethical, harmful, and stigmatizing. Young people deserve better.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
www.endalldisease.com/ted-bund…
So, we shouldn't tell people that drinking and driving is wrong, because that just makes them do it more? We shouldn't tell people to use condoms, cause they'll use it less?
God intended for Adam and Eve to make their own choices, and He planned for them to eat of the fruit. We wouldn't be here, or be able to grow and learn if they hadn't.
I demonize sexuality, not sex. In fact, intercourse is the most important physical relation a man and woman coluld have. So I would rather our culture stop putting such sacred things in such an offensives manner, using them as ploys for advertisement.
The urges certainly are there. But we choose what to so about them. "Bottling up?" I'm asking our society to stop WAKING them up before they are ready. Such a high percentage of people having sex before marriage already is evidence on how our culture's sex craze is manipulating these emotions.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
That's not a study. That's an interview. Do you need help distinguishing the difference?
Driving is fine. Irresponsible driving is not.
Sex is fine. Irresponsible sex is not.
Your god did the equivalent of intentionally leaving his children alone in a room with an unsecured loaded gun. Any court of law would convict such a father of child endangerment and willful negligence. To say that deceiving your children and purposefully putting them in danger is the only way to make them grow and learn is appalling and abhorrent.
You're half right. Intercourse is the most important physical relation a mutually consenting couple could have. Rape is often the basis of marriage in scripture, forcing helpless women to marry their rapists. Your own prophet, Joseph Smith, was a polygamous womanizer who taught that polygamy was a divine commandment, and (by some accounts) married as many as 30 women, some as young as 14, and many of which were already married to other men! Obviously your religion is not one free of sex craze.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Hmmm. So, what is responsible sex? Using birth control? A condom? Right, and that's why one in four sexually active teenage get an STD.
So you say that people need to be taught to have sex whenever they want, but just with some "protection" to make it "safe"? Don't you understand that abstinance is for that very purpose: to stay safe from having sex early? So you back it up with, "It's hard-wired. We can't stop people from having sex." Oh, really? Humans, the greatest of all species to live on the Earth, who have gone to the moon, have built atom bombs, and are the most intelligent beings on the planet, and we can't control sexual urges? What would our lives be if we followed every passing impulse? We'd be fat, full of STD's, suicidal, homicidal, car-wrecking, poor, lazy... why we would be anything good at all. It isn't wrong to have sex, drive a car, eat, rest, spend money, etc, but responsible people would wait, not rely on something as chance-y as birth control for the purpose of fulfilling a carnal impulse as a teenager.
Nothing is normal about pornography. It affects the mind, makes you see people as objects, ruins relationships, and desensitizes you as fast as any drug, but instead to love and caring, to actual beauty, repalced by photoshop and actors. It is disgusting, and absolutely abhorrent.
No. He gave them an open choice. He warned them of the concequences of both, and told them their duties. He made no decpetions, and only told plainly what would happen for eating the fruit. He did not put them in danger, He gave them the option. He in no way neglected them; He sent angels to teach, to this day has a prophet on the earth to speak His words, has constantly come to save us when we need it, if we will grab the hand He stretches out to us. Tell me, how do you learn about what sweet tastes like, if you've never tasted bitter? How do you strengthen your muscles without exersise, or build knowledge without hard work and study? How do you learn and do good? You must encounter, understand, and choose against evil.
Example please, of the Bible rape thing.
You want to know where those other men the women were married to were? Dead. Why? If not from the numerous mobs coming against them for the sole purpose of hating their religion, from the EXTERMINATION ORDER in Missouri, the only order in U.S. history, or from the thousands who died on the trek to the West, or in the largest battalion march in U.S. history, which they voluntarily joined despite being outside the country that had slaughtered them. So, as God had done with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, for bringing up a righteous people, and to protect the women and children now fatherless and widowed, He for a small time gave commandment for select few men to participate in polygamy, yes. Thank you for asking.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Again, you have no studies or facts to back up your claims. All you have is an interview with a criminal who said a study exists, and you just blindly take his word for it? If you don't care about facts then it's no wonder you're so ignorant about how the world around you actually works. You have ideals of a fantasy world and try to force those ideals on the real world. That's like fitting a square block in a round hole. You have to drastically alter one to accommodate the other. You're hurting innocent people by doing that. With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things... that takes religion.
YES! Safe sex is birth control and condoms. The reason for the rate of teenage pregnancy and STDs I already explained: poverty, unemployment, and low self-esteem are the main culprits. Address the underlying problems and you'll start to see true social improvement. Instead you focus only on the effects of the problems and use abstinence-only programs as a duct tape solution, which has fallen apart time and time again, and your response... is to add more duct tape.
You don't give humans enough credit. If a person can't determine right from wrong, they lack empathy, not religion. You obviously lack empathy when it comes to the LGBT community, calling them unnatural. You, who believe in talking snakes and virgin births, have no business telling me what's unnatural.
The same applies to religion. It affects the mind, makes you see people as objects, ruins relationships, and desensitizes you as fast as any drug. It is disgusting and absolutely abhorrent.
There's no choice when you just said the tragic events were supposed to happen. He gave Adam and Eve the illusion of choice, while the whole time setting up the perfect stage to make sure they screwed up. I know a girl who did something similar with a baby chick she bought at a market. She put the chick on her lawn and told it to stay put. When it began to wander off, she brought it back, again telling it to stay put. When it wandered off yet again, she picked it up and slammed it on the ground "Didn't I tell you to stay put?!" and broke it's leg.
That girl knew the chick would wander away. It's the nature of the chicken. She knew and was simply waiting for it to defy her so she could punish it. Your god is the same. He knows the nature of humans. He knows and simply waits for them to defy him so he can punish them.
You're ignorant of the widespread use of rape in the bible? You only know the happy children's stories they tell in Sunday school? And then when you actually come across such passages, I can't believe you don't know it's wrong. You have to 'study' it so you can find a way to make it fit your worldview that you serve a good god, chipping away at that square peg to make it fit the round hole...
I'll give you a hint. Whenever your god rallies an army to punish a city, he often rewards his soldiers by giving them virgin brides from the conquered cities, sparing no one else. These girls are then forced to marry the men who killed their parents, siblings, friends, and neighbors. Who would willingly have sex with a man like that? Obviously these women were repeatedly raped, and all with your god's approval.
Dead, you say? Then that would make them widows, not married. However, only one woman was a widow at the time of their marriage to him. The rest still had living, breathing husbands. For example, Lucinda Pendleton Morgan Harris was married to him in 1838, but lived with her first husband, George Washington Harris, until about 1853.
You don't need to marry a village to provide aid to the villagers. That's ridiculous. But this way he could legitimately have sex with scores of women without looking like the lusty scoundrel that he was.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
www.bxscience.edu/publications…
Pdf to personality profile of serial killer.
So, you are arguing that we should address low self-esteem and poverty then? Fair point, those are problematic and can be causes of going to sex as an answer. But again, a society that almost tells you to do it isn't helping. And birth control, which really is meant for married couples to choose when they want children, for teenagers is only telling them, "it doesn't matter if you have sex. You're covered." Can you not see how irresponsible it is, to, instead of fixing the problems of poverty and low self-esteem (which arguably is caused by our sexualized society anyways), continue on in condoning sex? In thinking there is a cheaper drug-store solution to not only STD's and pregnancy (which by the way, why is pregnancy a PROBLEM in today's culture?), but for the emotional distress later, the continued low feelings of worth, and continued poverty? So yes, sexualized culture is not the only cause of teenage sex. But an encouragement to abstain from something that will only do harm has no reason to be critisized. It's almost like you want kids to have sex.
When did I say people lacked religion if they were ignorant to right and wrong? I said it is my religious belief that our human capacity to do so is because of a religious event. I also don't remember calling LGBT unnatural. They are human beings, and should be treated as such, with the same rights as others. Discriminations you have mentioned should be taken care of. Those are not my arguments. I simply find no right as human beings that says they get stuff like tax benefits (which if I do remember right, you believe that marriages should not have them either... but I digress). If they say they are in love and should be together, fine, go, get a house, get jobs, you can do that.
Right. So all of those humanitarian religious organizations, and addiction recovery programs, and the whole "bring souls to God and heaven" thing, are examples of desensitized, dehumanizing minds.
For the redemption if mankind, and the growth of us, His children, to become like He is, it was necessary for us to have a knowledge of good and evil; with a knowledge of good and evil also must include a world with good and evil choices, as is ours today. But God never forced them to. He wanted them to become like Him, wanted them to choose His Son who he would send, who would choose to suffer the sins of the world for their sakes. But He gave them choice. They chose to eat of the fruit, and they began to live here, where death and sin existed, but where God BLESSED them with angels to teach them to work, and how to grow food, etc. I am quite tired of trying to convince you that my God is one who wants to bless us, but you are just so set on believing in one that hates you. Okay, fine. Believe that then.
Interesting explaination, with... still no example. I study, you see, because I don't want to take people's word for things. How dumb I would look, to simply agree with whatever somebody tells me without figuring it out for myself.
You know, I could give pages to you on polygyny in the Church, but I think this is really all that will matter to you. See, I believe that there was a sacred reason for the return of the ordinance in the early years of the Church. You, however, with your much more heavily culture-based mindset, automatically assumed that people marry to have sex... which is untrue. To assume that Joseph Smith married women for the purpose of having some wild sex dream fulfilled is not only completely unscientific, it is presumptuous and quite unempathetic.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
So you admit that you never found the supposed FBI study you were so sure existed? That's fine. Consider this a learning experience to be wary of hearsay.
Now, if you really read the entire article you linked me to, you'd see that pornography is NOT a "common trait found among all serial killers." That list is restricted to: childhood bed wetting, setting fires, and abusing animals. When they're older, the signs become the desire to be alone, the inability to do well in school or hold a job, and family problems at home that indicate a future of aggression. From here, they branch out by types: Visionary, Missionary, Lust, Thrill, Seeker, and Gain. Addiction to pornography is only found in the Lust type.
You might say "Even if only one type of serial killer reads pornography, it's still a factor and therefore is evil."
Fair enough. Let's apply that logic to some other factors in the study:
*90% are Caucasian males, therefore Caucasian men are evil.
*Most have high IQs ranging from 105 to 120 (Ted Bundy had an IQ of 140, considered genius level,) therefore intelligence is evil.
*68% were bedwetters as children, therefore bedwetting children will grow up to be evil.
Do you see how absurd this line of reasoning becomes? Yes, these factors CAN contribute to the making of a serial killer, but alone they are harmless.
I agree that peer pressure to have sex is not helpful to our society. I disagree that abstinence-only is the best solution. You will not find any medical health experts that will agree with it either.
Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage Programs
www.siecus.org/index.cfm?fusea…
"Over the past 25 years, Congress has spent over $1.5 billion on abstinence-only-until-marriage programs, yet no study in a professional peer-reviewed journal has found these programs to be broadly effective. Scientific evidence simply does not support an abstinence-only-until-marriage approach."
The truth does not match your worldview. How many more years and how many more billions of dollars do you want to waste on something that doesn't work?
Religious events often clash with scientific evidence and therefore require religion to be believed. Besides the "talking snake" in the Garden of Eden, no animals were involved in the religious event you speak of, and yet...
Animals 'can tell right from wrong'
www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetec…
"Until recently, humans were thought to be the only species to experience complex emotions, but Professor Marc Bekoff, from the University of Colorado, Boulder, believes that morals are ‘hard-wired’ into the brains of all mammals."
As for humanitarian efforts, I don't deny that there exist some groups with a sincere desire to help. However there are quite a few religious charities that only aid their own people or use their aid as leverage for evangelism. An example for the former is the Catholic Charities of Rockford, Illinois. After civil unions were legalized in that state, the charity became so afraid that it would have to place foster children in the homes of gay couples that it preferred to shut down its state-funded adoption services altogether. An example of the latter is Operation Christmas Child, a group that delivers boxes of toys to children, including a note inviting recipients to join in Christianity. The toys were essencially bribes.
So you're saying your god only hates the sin but loves the sinner? Scripture speak contrary to that: carm.org/does-god-hate-anyone
I did give you an example, one broad enough to cover the dozen or so biblical stories matching the description of god approved rape. The fact that not a single one comes to your mind . Well, here's one:
"When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the Lord thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive, And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house; and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails; And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife."
So here we have a soldier of your god being told women are spoils of war. Feel free to pick out a pretty one to be your sex slave. Make sure you humilate her first by shaving her head, give her a month to get used to the fact that she'll never see her family again, then go ahead and have your way with her. There's no such thing as marital rape in the bible. If this is a new term for you, allow me to explain:
Marital rape, also known as spousal rape, is non-consensual sex in which the perpetrator is the victim's spouse. It is a form of domestic violence. It can be equally, or even more, emotionally and physically damaging than rape by a stranger.
Are you telling me that Joseph Smith didn't have sex with any of his wives at all? Isn't that your entire argument, that sex should only be for married heterosexual couples? Let me get this straight... you don't want people having sex outside of wedlock, you don't want gays having sex at all, and now you're saying that sex isn't part of the marriage deal? Now THAT is what I call completely unscientific, presumptuous, and unempathetic
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Thankyou for taking the time and effort to put together a very intelligent essay. I only hope people realize it is ok to question their religon and to further educate themselfs on the subjecy matter and that this is not a sin but a worthwhile endevour in self discovery.
👍: 0 ⏩: 3
Tgere's nothing in here that can't be shut down.
Go to Blue Letter bible and see these verses in thier greek and you'll see it's a sin.
Romans 1:26
1 Corinthians 6:9
1 Timothy 1:10
Explain these
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I'm not going to try and explain or justify flctional text to you. Have fun with it though, you may also like Harry Potter.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Then if you don't believe. Then why are you supporting any bible interpretation?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Because as I said to the young author, I thought he wrote a good essay. In my my opinion any art is open to critque but also encouragement in the artists who endevours to create it.
On a side note, just because I don't believe in your particular religon does not mean I cannot have a voice on the subject matter. I no longer wish to discuss this matter further with you as I believe it will be a waste of my time. So lets just leave it as you are entitled to your opinion no matter how closed minded it is and I have the right to mine. Take care.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
You should actually research this stuff
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
It was my pleasure! I've already had a few people tell me this essay has opened their eyes to things they never knew about or never thought about before. Even if it didn't change their minds completely, it helped them take a step in the right direction, and that's good enough for me ^_^
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Hello! IDK if you will still reply to me since I see this is an old post of yours but I still would like to say: this is well written and thank you for taking the time to write it.
When I was a little girl externally bandwagoning with my Catholic religion(though internally I was more agnostic) I told my friends homosexuality is morally wrong. This was during the time when Prop 8 was being debated on. I regretted saying that a year later when I considered the reasonings for why gays and lesbians are who they are and doing what they are doing. Since then, I would go back and forth between feeling indifferent towards gays and lesbians(but still thinking it's considered a sin) and supporting the belief that being homosexual is not a choice(therefore God knew that person would be gay). I also didn't read the bible often so I didn't know about sayings of what you addressed until I was in high school(i.e. slaves being okay to have, etc) Now, I still do believe God exist but also believe that when he judges someone.... he's more focused on the person's intent and character, not how many sins a person has done in their life, 'cause there might be sins that the person committed that they were unaware of. At least that's how I see it for now, I'm still re-evaluating my beliefs at the moment. A number of things led me to find more info that says homosexuality is okay or isn't morally wrong. Such as people on Youtube who shared their coming out stories and how they prayed for assurance of not being gay...and then I came across you! I was approached in my college by a non-denominational Christian group/church chapter for bible studies and I am giving them a try 'cause I've always felt very spiritual anyways(I wanted to develop my spirituality more and move past agnosticism). So far, I'm observing their behavior and I noticed that some are still involved in things that are,according to the bible, not approved: the girls wearing makeup(vanity), eating honey baked ham for holidays(cannot eat pork). Yet, my mentor right now who does that alluded to me that homosexuality is still bad(we haven't fully addressed it yet). She did tell,however, to read the bible to test out my convictions. So, we shall see... She had told me that her church uses the NIV Holy Bible, do you know if that has any bias or if people who use that have any bias over things? And getting back to the main point: after researching how gays and lesbians feel I've felt from then on that maybe Christians have been looking at things wrong, but couldn't quite put it into words. It could be because I'm more emotional than logical. So, I'm glad that you were able to do that. 
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Wow, you have quite a lot to say! Yes, I still check my account every day and reply to comments on my work ^_^ I'm glad you were able to empathize with LGBT community and have a change of heart towards them. Have you mentioned the hypocrisy displayed in your college's bible studies group to them? In my essay I mention a few excuses commonly used in religious circles for why they say they believe one thing but do the opposite, as well as the rebuttals.
As I said in my essay: each translation reflects the world-view, beliefs, and mind set of its translators. In the NIV's case, the editorial group was Protestant and it is a matter of common sense that a Protestant editorial board will work from Protestant presuppositions and promote the Protestant tradition and theology. For example, it replaces the word tradition (Greek: paradosis) to the word “teaching” (Greek: didaktikos) in 2 Thessalonians 2:15, probably to avoid the Catholic implications of the word tradition. Why not ask why did the Protestant committee so drastically change the English word, misrepresenting the actual Greek word used by St. Paul? Are they suggesting that St. Paul, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, used the wrong word?
Granted, being fluent in Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic are not prerequisites to bible study, but you don't have to be. There is plenty on the internet written by people that are and have done the work for you.
Perhaps you could suggest that the group should use many different translations in order to pick up the depth and nuances of meaning in any given passage of the Bible~
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yay! You responded
O.o Yeah so confusing because I only have been in two bible studies with my mentor so far(interesting twist: she was once an atheist before being approached by the group. Now, she has been intensely reading the NIV bible along with taking training from her church headquarters that I will not Identify for security reasons 
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It's not uncommon for someone to change sides from atheist to religious or from religious to atheist. I know people who come from both sides.
If you personally lack credibility, you can use somebody else's. You can say something like, "Regarding that passage we just read, the Christian philosopher Saint Thomas Aquinas said..." or "I have a question about this topic, because I read an article on the Answers In Genesis website that explained it this way..."
"Oh, you're looking at another case where a group has twisted the words around to as they see fit."
"Each translation reflects the world-view, beliefs, and mind set of its translators. In the NIV's case, the editorial group was Protestant and it is a matter of common sense that a Protestant editorial board will work from Protestant presuppositions and promote the Protestant tradition and theology."
^I'd say that works as a fine rebuttal to your hypothetical accusation.
You are correct to be suspicious of the NGPA translation. Even that is not exempt from bias. However, you can see how easily their interpretation fits. This is how most people choose the religion that is "right for them" because they come in already having ideas about what is right and wrong and they find a denomination that matches what they already believe. Nobody joins a church not knowing if homosexuality is okay or not. And if the church they joined later changes its mind about homosexuals, that person doesn't stay... they leave to find another church.
Regarding what your mentor said about leaders being wrong and needing to discover what is "true for you," I find this to be just plain bad advice. People reading the same text and coming to different conclusions is the reason there are approximately 41,000 different Christian denominations worldwide. If a religion is divinely inspired, I would hope the god would make sure his followers knew exactly what he wanted from them.Are homosexuals abominations? Is slavery okay? Was the entire universe created in one literal week? Transmutation? The divinity of Jesus? Some say those are just minor details and none of it is that important. Others say knowing the difference is a matter of eternal life or death. That's a huge responsibility to guesswork.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Thank you again. Before reading your next reply to me, I went ahead to look at the verses about slavery in openbible.com and there I saw side by side what Leviticus had said about living out the "master owning slaves" life and what Galatians had said about slaves being free because of Christ. So, that means there is a change of what's considered right and wrong because of Christ. Yet, I was told that every prophecy[am I referring to that correctly? Or is preaching a better term? Please check me on that
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
2 Timothy 3:16-17
"All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work."
Good luck~
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
<= Prev | | Next =>